Why Obama Should Talk More About Foreign Policy

His vision is a marked departure from the Bush years and has seen some real success, but it needs to be about more than just winning in 2012.

President Obama speaks to troops at Fort Bragg in North Carolina / AP

If you asked President Barack Obama whether he sees foreign
policy as a strength in his reelection bid, judging by his emphasis on the
subject in last week's State of the Union Address, Obama might well answer the
same way he did to questions about whether he is an appeaser: "Ask
Osama bin Laden."

Though Obama only talked about foreign policy for six
minutes in the last Tuesday's State of the Union (nine
percent of the speech, a decrease from previous years), the decision to bookend the speech with
foreign policy and military matters set its tone. The speech also made an effective
case to voters: In pollster Stan
Greenberg's focus group, voters scored Obama highest on the two mentions of
bin Laden, "both of which pushed the average dial rating close to 90." And in
what could be a significant phenomenon in November, should it hold,
"independents consistently rated [the foreign policy] section higher than even
Democrats did."

The Republicans will surely challenge Obama's foreign policy
message. They are already arguing that Obama does not believe the U.S. is
exceptional and that his policies have weakened the nation.

But as I
and others
have discussed, Obama both acts and sounds like an exceptionalist, and he
certainly did so again in his State of the Union. What is true, however, is
that Obama's American exceptionalism is different than has been the American
norm for the past decade.

The exceptionalism espoused by today's Republican candidates
is in line with the foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration. That
White House took the "unipolar
moment" to heart. These unipolar exceptionalists believe the nation can and
should act unilaterally to pursue its exceptional interests and security. They
tend to favor military might, whether its threat or practice, over diplomacy.
They do not believe in restraining American power and interests. And they are
less interested in the perspectives, experiences, and challenges of other
nations unless they agree with America's vision of itself and the world or
start to more closely resemble the United States' exceptional democracy.

Obama is what you might call an "indispensable
exceptionalist," which is in line with the traditions established by the post-Cold War administrations of Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. In fact, three years into his presidency, he appears to have adopted a the exceptionalist rhetoric of Clinton-era Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.Obama
said on Tuesday, "America remains the one indispensable nation in world
affairs -- and as long as I'm President, I intend to keep it that way." According
to a search of presidential papers and campaign documents powered by a web engine of
University of California, Santa Barbara, "indispensable nation" is a
relatively recent addition to Obama's presidential rhetoric.

To Obama and indispensable exceptionalists, America is the "straw
that stirs" the global drink, to lean on New York Yankee legend Reggie Jackson.
Jackson suggested that a team full of self-interested players
required a talented, charismatic leader to blend their talents and make the
team successful. In the same way, Obama and his team believe the United States
is unique in its capacity to bring together other nations, set the global
agenda, and create change by leading -- from the front or behind. Whether fighting
nuclear proliferation, organizing Iran sanctions, or spurring action on Libya,
Obama believes, as he
told Fareed Zakaria, that he and his team have helped create a "clear
belief among other nations that the United States continues to be the one
indispensable nation in tackling major international problems."

That interview and the State of the Union are parts of a
rhetorical trend. When Obama
and his
team talk like exceptionalists, they talk about renewing "American
leadership." Like much of the administration's foreign policy, this is based on
something Obama promised as a candidate. "To renew American leadership in the
world," Obama wrote
in a 2007 article in Foreign Affairs, "we must" end the Iraq war, revitalize
the nation's military, confront the spread of nuclear weapons, forge a more
effective global response to the terrorism, rebuild alliances, and invest in
"common humanity."

His success on that to-do list so far has varied, of course,
but nearly all those objectives have been furthered under the Obama
administration. So why has Obama's success on foreign policy not done more for
his poll numbers? According to a recent Washington
Post poll, Obama's approval levels on international affairs and terrorism
are actually lower than they were three years ago.

Some of this was the inevitable settling of expectations.
And the economic downturn and continued high unemployment surely contribute to Americans'
disappointment. So has the crisis-prone international environment: with the
Japanese earthquake and meltdown, the Arab spring, the Eurozone economic panic,
and continued struggles in Afghanistan, the world looks like an uncontrollable
place right now.

Another and perhaps more important reason that Obama's idea
of renewed American global leadership is not giving him much of a political
advantage is the lack of progress on the last point of Obama's plan. He wrote
in that Foreign Affairs article, "ultimately, no foreign policy can succeed
unless the American people understand it and feel they have a stake in its
success." But it is hard to suggest Americans have such a stake in Obama's
efforts to renew America's indispensable leadership.

Obama has made few speeches to the American people to get
them to buy into his version of exceptionalism -- the State of the Union was a
rare exception and even then less than a tenth of the speech. When Obama does
talk about foreign policy, his words say one thing (in marking the Iraq War's
end, Obama
argued the "greatest challenge that we now face as a nation" is "creating
opportunity and jobs in this country") but his decisions (such as Obama's
commitment to spending American resources and risking American lives to end the
Qaddafi regime in Libya) often say something else. Perhaps those two goals are mutually
agreeable, necessary, and obtainable; but the mixed messages in a muted foreign
policy discussion can be confusing.It also risks allowing Republicans to fill in the void by claiming that Obama's foreign policy is out of step with mainstream American tradition.

The Obama foreign policy fits neatly into American tradition.The 2012 campaign provides Obama an opportunity to sell this
version of American exceptionalism to the nation.For much of 2008 his foreign policy worldview
was viewed as not-Hillary Clinton, not-Bush, and not-McCain. A full exposition
of and pitch for his exceptionalist worldview might help him in the campaign
against the Republican nominee, but, more importantly, it could align the
American people behind his plans to "renew" American leadership in the world. It
can only help.